Stages of Duality

[Creepy-male]

I meant the 5th time you are on a date.

If you see a dual in the distant or passing by at work, that doesn't count as meeting. It's when the dating has already started.

Or some sort of interest is happening or some sort of emotional thing happens.

The connecting process can be really rapidly catalyzed by all manner of external circumstances.

[Suz]

I meant the 5th time you are on a date.

If you see a dual in the distant or passing by at work, that doesn't count as meeting. It's when the dating has already started.

what about working closely together for a while, does that count towards the "meetings?"

[Brilliand]

what about working closely together for a while, does that count towards the "meetings?"

I think we'd better take Jarno's claim as , by which I mean a sense of how long one thing takes to lead to another. Running into a person can be a "meeting", and non-"meeting", a half-"meeting"... just a certain amount of "meeting-ness" that has been achieved.

[Jarno]

I can't remember where I've read that article.

Anyways, my own experience is based on dating.

A working environment is different. Dating is really close psychological distance, more then you can ever get in a working environment. Dating is also good to get a feel of the relationship, it's just the most intense type of interaction I guess.

[Waddlesworth]

I'm very curious about this... does anyone have any insight or experience w duality who could describe the "stages" duals go through, or know of any resources where it's written about in English?

It is said that most successfully married couples are duals. Statistically you are more likely to marry your dual.

So it probably goes something like: physical attraction, mental/emotional attraction, ability to accomplish tasks together. Marriage, kids maybe, then death.

Basically what I am saying is that socionics is not going to do anything to help you with this, since people naturally are drawn to their "duals" anyway. Just let nature take its course as it uniquely will for you and stop worrying about all of this type nonsense.

[Jarno]

It is said that most successfully married couples are duals. Statistically you are more likely to marry your dual.

So it probably goes something like: physical attraction, mental/emotional attraction, ability to accomplish tasks together. Marriage, kids maybe, then death.

Basically what I am saying is that socionics is not going to do anything to help you with this, since people naturally are drawn to their "duals" anyway. Just let nature take its course as it uniquely will for you and stop worrying about all of this type nonsense.

socionics sais that nature plays a trick on us, because you don't notice your duals in the beginning. but conflictor have a mutual attraction. I think socionics can therefor be very useful to avoid conflictors and to notice duals.

[Creepy-]

I have another question: is either the introvert or extravert more likely to realize the spark first, or is there no strong correlation?

Going by descriptions alone I would think that the introvert might be slightly more likely to pick up on it first since they are the ones "keeping inventory of what ground has been covered in the relationship" and "processing the relationship." Thoughts or observations?

[Joy]

I have another question: is either the introvert or extravert more likely to realize the spark first, or is there no strong correlation?

I think this may be more related to ethics vs. logic? Of course, other factors will often come into play, such as experience.

[Creepy-]

Hmm, okay - I always sort of assumed the person w ethics in their ego would realize it first, but then I began to wonder.

I think you're right about experience too - that probably has a lot to do w recognizing duality too, maybe even more than type, and someone who has experienced duality before would be probably be a lot more likely to spot it early on...

Any other thoughts on introversion/extraversion or logic/ethics and recognizing duality?

If both Joy and I are correct, the IxFxs must be very quick to identify it... and ExTxs very slow....

[Joy]

The extrovert is usually the initiator on some level, even if they have weak Se and weak ethics. The ethical type is responsible for knowing of the status of the relationship, however.

[Suz]

The extrovert is usually the initiator on some level, even if they have weak Se and weak ethics. The ethical type is responsible for knowing of the status of the relationship, however.

so, what is the ethical type supposed to do with this knowledge? Just wait until the extrovert makes a move?

[Brilliand]

so, what is the ethical type supposed to do with this knowledge? Just wait until the extrovert makes a move?

Maybe tell the extrovert when the extrovert looks confused?

[Joy]

so, what is the ethical type supposed to do with this knowledge? Just wait until the extrovert makes a move?

The "move" could be something as simple as starting the first conversation or asking to hang out.

[Suz]

The "move" could be something as simple as starting the first conversation or asking to hang out.

Yeah but what is the introvert responsible for doing? just being welcoming of the move? what happens if the introvert actually seeks out the extrovert?

I have not seen him in a while (a couple weeks!) and am experiencing the stage where I need to see him again (I miss his presence-- the feeling came on about 5 days ago and is getting unbearable). so I was going to go spend time in a place where he might show up. Would that be too forward you think?

[Brilliand]

Someone asked me what "fields" and "objects" means, so I'll just quote from socionics.us:

Feelings? This doesn't quite match the "interaction between objects" later on the same page. "Feelings" is actually what I'd call "internal."

[Brilliand]

Rick is ENFp....
He means "subjective attitude (towards the object)", imo.

Well, if he's just describing his favorite Fields element there, that probably needs to be clarified anytime the description is quoted elsewhere, particularly by us egos.

[Blaze]

these kind of threads driver me crazy. my head starts to feel too full.

i know when i'm around a dual when i get a warm buzzing feeling in my chest.

who starts it? prolly me since i start everything.

who manages it? SEI, of course.

[Creepy-male]

or as chemical elements, that combined with other elements in the ego, create new molecules different from either of the elements used in the combination.

Awesome! I get to be Silanol!

[Waddlesworth]

socionics sais that nature plays a trick on us, because you don't notice your duals in the beginning. but conflictor have a mutual attraction. I think socionics can therefor be very useful to avoid conflictors and to notice duals.

Liar once told me that I was a stupid failure and a worthless loser. Liar also told me I can't tell my ass from my elbow until I got smacked upside my head.

I choose not to listen to Socionics OR Liar. I'd rather figure it out on my own, thank you very much!

[Brilliand]

I recently explained Socionics to a girl (she came out as EIE when we discussed her type), and she suggested that all that is real is the relationships, and the objects are just simplified ways of looking at the fields. This was opposite my own thoughts, but I couldn't really refute it; indeed, everything that we actually know about objects can be defined in terms of fields, because all of our observations are relative to the nervous systems collecting them. Likewise (and more obviously), the fields can be defined in terms of the objects.

Every element can describe all truth, when applied thoroughly enough. So no particular element is "reality"... they just have different degrees of usefulness for taking on different problems.

[FDG]

I recently explained Socionics to a girl (she came out as EIE when we discussed her type), and she suggested that all that is real is the relationships, and the objects are just simplified ways of looking at the fields. This was opposite my own thoughts, but I couldn't really refute it; indeed, everything that we actually know about objects can be defined in terms of fields, because all of our observations are relative to the nervous systems collecting them. Likewise (and more obviously), the fields can be defined in terms of the objects.

Every element can describe all truth, when applied thoroughly enough. So no particular element is "reality"... they just have different degrees of usefulness for taking on different problems.

Yes, you could call all the types and the functions differently, the relationships would stand still. Yet, many type descriptions are behavioral, so it doesn't make sense to think that the objects aren't real.

[Suz]

Sitting here underslept and exhausted, I am reading this crappy (pseudo-scientific) ideological article about "duality" and can't help but slowly weep on the inside. I've pretty much been a loner all my life and haven't even come close to experiencing a relationship in such depth, except in my dreams and fantasies. People come and go, relationships start and brake, but nothing and no one stands by me forever like that. There has been potential, of course, but every goddamn chance that comes my way somehow manages to end up blasting itself off into space, or taking the wrong turn eventually. And I rarely fail to contribute to this.

Parkster, I just want to say. . .my life has been the SAME exact way so far.



hmm, maybe i'm SLI??

[silverchris9]

Nah, just inherent dual sameness. Duals are secretly the same, just flipped inside out. It's true of IEIs and SLEs, and likely true of other dual pairs as well.

Every element can describe all truth, when applied thoroughly enough. So no particular element is "reality"... they just have different degrees of usefulness for taking on different problems.

YES.
All "dichotomies" are questions of emphasis (and I don't just mean socionics dichotomies). A dichotomy is a way of understanding a unity even the dichotomy between unity and separation. All things are both unified and separate in reality. Just depends on how you look at it. I do not say that to deny that there is a final reality which is ultimately perceivable (though only, I would say, by the gift of God, or maybe in glimpses and snatches by those virtuous pagans the poets), but to not that we are not able to perceive the unity underlying the diversity nor the diversity underlying the unity. That is, I want to emphasize the just how perceptual perception is, which perhaps will also let us see how overwhelmingly real (that is, being) reality is. Dichotomies are conceptual categories, necessary for experience, thought, and contemplation. But they are not really "true" in the strict sense, and thus the law of excluded middle is tupped over into the sea.

[redbaron]

Nah, just inherent dual sameness. Duals are secretly the same, just flipped inside out. It's true of IEIs and SLEs, and likely true of other dual pairs as well.

yes. I was gonna say the same thing.

[Joy]

I used to say "opposite sides of the same coin".

[jewels]

let me also add, that sometimes you fight w/ your dual. Even though they are your dual. Maybe that is a stage.

[Creepy-male]

let me also add, that sometimes you fight w/ your dual. Even though they are your dual. Maybe that is a stage.

You fight with everyone close to you sooner or later, I think. And, while not a good thing in its own right, often the aftereffects are positive.

[redbaron]

let me also add, that sometimes you fight w/ your dual. Even though they are your dual. Maybe that is a stage.

Yes I think slackermom mentioned this too. although the fights are very short-lived and infrequent.

[Gilly]

No dual is my dual if we don't fight.

[Joy]

Yeah but what is the introvert responsible for doing? just being welcoming of the move? what happens if the introvert actually seeks out the extrovert?

I have not seen him in a while (a couple weeks!) and am experiencing the stage where I need to see him again (I miss his presence-- the feeling came on about 5 days ago and is getting unbearable). so I was going to go spend time in a place where he might show up. Would that be too forward you think?

LOL NO

[redbaron]

LOL NO

lol! seriously, work, you sound more like an introvert to me. Although my IEE mom is a lot like you. So maybe.

[Suz]

LOL NO

LOL Joy that was from like 3-4 months ago! A lot has happened since then. A lot and at the same time, really haven't moved forward at all.

redbaron . . .I'm definitely an introvert. In MBTI i'm INFJ, heavy on the I. Apparently per socionics i'm one of those introverted extratims.

[shakealittle]

I don't find duality boring at all and I fight with my dual constantly. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be an open fight but I know we a fighting. People will go oh "EIE is so nice, kind, well meaning" and I'll go back "well you obviously don't know him well enough....or.....don't you understand why he's doing that?" Maybe it's just the EIE-LSI duality. It's never boring let me tell you.

[redbaron]

I don't find duality boring at all and I fight with my dual constantly. Sometimes it doesn't even have to be an open fight but I know we a fighting. People will go oh "EIE is so nice, kind, well meaning" and I'll go back "well you obviously don't know him well enough....or.....don't you understand why he's doing that?" Maybe it's just the EIE-LSI duality. It's never boring let me tell you.

I think it's the EIE-LSI duality. My EIE aunt picks fights with my SEI uncle all the time. He hates it but she loves a good fight. It's painful to watch!

[shakealittle]

I think it's the EIE-LSI duality. My EIE aunt picks fights with my SEI uncle all the time. He hates it but she loves a good fight. It's painful to watch!

I can just imagine! It's even worse when the EIE invokes emotional reactions in the other person with the EIE just standing their emotionless saying it's not a big deal when they were the one who needed that reaction as assurance, lol!!!! Around the EIE I've never been so emotional in my life!

[jewels]

I can just imagine! It's even worse when the EIE invokes emotional reactions in the other person with the EIE just standing their emotionless saying it's not a big deal when they were the one who needed that reaction as assurance, lol!!!! Around the EIE I've never been so emotional in my life!

my EIE sister does that all the time. Not even aware she's doing it. She also loves to fight and her IEI husband goes along with it for a while, but eventually gets mad and puts her in her place.

[JuJu]

Nah, just inherent dual sameness. Duals are secretly the same, just flipped inside out. It's true of IEIs and SLEs, and likely true of other dual pairs as well.

YES.
All "dichotomies" are questions of emphasis (and I don't just mean socionics dichotomies). A dichotomy is a way of understanding a unity even the dichotomy between unity and separation. All things are both unified and separate in reality. Just depends on how you look at it. I do not say that to deny that there is a final reality which is ultimately perceivable (though only, I would say, by the gift of God, or maybe in glimpses and snatches by those virtuous pagans the poets), but to not that we are not able to perceive the unity underlying the diversity nor the diversity underlying the unity. That is, I want to emphasize the just how perceptual perception is, which perhaps will also let us see how overwhelmingly real (that is, being) reality is. Dichotomies are conceptual categories, necessary for experience, thought, and contemplation. But they are not really "true" in the strict sense, and thus the law of excluded middle is tupped over into the sea.

One of the most Zen things I've read here... Great post. I agree 100%.

[crazedrat]

I think you can get close to glimpsing reality through considering many angles. There is a strange phenomenon I've been learning since I've been starting to play chess. That is when you are confident you have found yourself a move, your mind hones in but you stop considering possibilities outside the move you're contemplating. Your opponent may respond in an unexpected way, but you didn't consider this as you were too busy counting out the steps of your own move and his presumed response. In order to properly play chess and make good moves you have to first consider all your possibilities, hone in on a few of them, but keep your mind as blank as possible. Never latch on to any one possibility to where you aren't considering alternatives. Thinking too hard just makes you a little more blind. And if you keep your mind blank, and looking for new information, the best move will actually emerge on its own. You wont have to look for it; because you were infact already looking for it by insisting on not looking too deeply into any one thing. That's not to say looking many moves ahead doesn't have its place as well, though. I guess you really have to jump back and fourth between both looking many moves ahead and then blanking out your mind...
Anyway end of ramble.

[Suz]

I think you can get close to glimpsing reality through considering many angles. There is a strange phenomenon I've been learning since I've been starting to play chess. That is when you are confident you have found yourself a move, your mind hones in but you stop considering possibilities outside the move you're contemplating. Your opponent may respond in an unexpected way, but you didn't consider this as you were too busy counting out the steps of your own move and his presumed response. In order to properly play chess and make good moves you have to first consider all your possibilities, hone in on a few of them, but keep your mind as blank as possible. Never latch on to any one possibility to where you aren't considering alternatives. Thinking too hard just makes you a little more blind. And if you keep your mind blank, and looking for new information, the best move will actually emerge on its own. You wont have to look for it; because you were infact already looking for it by insisting on not looking too deeply into any one thing. That's not to say looking many moves ahead doesn't have its place as well, though. I guess you really have to jump back and fourth between both looking many moves ahead and then blanking out your mind...
Anyway end of ramble.

WOW. Excellently said, crazedrat!

I my

[Gilly]

In order to properly play chess and make good moves you have to first consider all your possibilities, hone in on a few of them, but keep your mind as blank as possible. Never latch on to any one possibility to where you aren't considering alternatives. Thinking too hard just makes you a little more blind. And if you keep your mind blank, and looking for new information, the best move will actually emerge on its own. You wont have to look for it; because you were infact already looking for it by insisting on not looking too deeply into any one thing.

This is why I suck at chess. It just feels like this giant web of over-complicated rules and irrelevancies that I really can't be bothered to sort through. I much prefer Go: it's more straightforward, and is won not by making every move perfectly, but rather by establishing solidity and outmaneuvering your opponent.